Public Tit on Short Leash

George Rebane

As longtime supporters of the Salvation Army, Jo Ann and I got an invitation this morning to set up a meeting with Captains Don and Martha Sheppard who are the new heads of our local Nevada County unit.  The Union ran an article yesterday on the progress of a $1.6M government grant that the local SA received “to address homelessness”.  The money is planned to run out in 18 months at which time other proposals for more money will be in the mill “to keep the program going.”

All good and fine, but it got us thinking again on how these short-term, ad hoc government-sponsored programs are run.  Sustainability is the big idea these days, yet the declared use of funds like this does nothing to sustainably reduce homelessness – it is a temporary band-aid that must be replaced while the problem remains.

Seems to me there are two kinds of homeless – those who are there temporarily and should be helped/encouraged to get back on their feet, and those who are there more or less for the long term.  For the latter case an appropriate long-term housing program should be sought and funded.  If we have decided that government should be the source of funding for one or both (which is another story), then let’s screen the folks and issue them the proper long and short-term Public Tit Cards (PTCs) the presentation of which gets them into the right program without further fuss.  (For those whose eyebrows get raised at the notion of a public tit card, consider that most of us already carry them.  For example I have two PTCs - my Social Security and Medicare cards.  And, of course, there are many more kinds floating around out there issued by this or that government agency.)

But here’s the punch line.  Politicians and bureaucrats like to issue mostly short-term PTCs, the kind that have limited funding and/or require periodic requalification.  The politicians devise and effectively use short-term PTCs for buying votes, and the government bureaucrats use them for their full employment future.  The shorter the PTC leash, the more inefficient the allocation and disbursement process, and the more votes can be bought and agency chairs filled to administer come-and-go programs.

Before anyone hyperventilates, let me say that we all recognize the need for temporary PTCs along with the staff required to vet and move people in and out of such programs as fast as possible.  But government softened homelessness is and will be a recognized and ongoing problem that needs ‘sustainable’ programs for both short and long term cases.  This argues for setting up reliable funding channels so that some efficiencies can be brought to bear to reduce overall costs.  (Don’t laugh, it really could happen, and without the travesty of public housing projects.)

However, the forces arrayed against such efficiencies are mighty indeed.  Neither Senator Blowhard nor Deputy Administrator Nitpick will benefit from such streamlining.  The long-term, sustainable PTCs in my pocket became sacrosanct long ago, and today they have a weak link to any politician or bureaucrat.  But a new short leash PTC will immediately serve its sponsoring politician(s), and employ loads of staff at all levels to make sure that they are properly issued, administered, and frequently renewed, which, of course, will bring in the politician for another very visible bow.

Comments

[Mikey McD]

"The mission of the law is not to oppress persons and plunder them of their property, even though the law may be acting in a philanthropic spirit." Bastiat- The Law

We are giving less because the government is taking more. Higher taxes have forced us to decrease our donations to charity (or at a minimum not increase our charitable giving). The vote buyers (politicians) get to use our money to push their agenda's through a philanthropist juggernaut government system, it is far less rewarding to us "givers" and far less efficient.

Governments should reward philanthropy (tax incentives), not engage in it.

[Mikey McD]

Only government could steal from one to give to another and expect to take a bow for the effort.

[George Rebane]

Amen Mikey. Some years back the WSJ published a university study on charitable giving related to a person's political leaning. With the attendant survey they discovered that the liberal gives significantly less to charity than the conservative, apparently because people of the left see most charitable appeals performing social functions they believe should be or already are carried out by government. In short, they feel that their (those that pay) taxes have already taken care of the need.

I recall that the academics were surprised at the results. Most Main Street Americans weren't.

[JMcD]

This is just a small part of a much larger problem. The governement can never run something as smoothly as a private company nor can it keep a simple task from branching off into several tangent directions. For example, you give the job of sheltering the homeless to the government and they will undoubtedly take this task and add in feeding, medicating, psychiatrics, clothing and transporting, babysitting etc. They will then find 2 people to do the job of one and add in several layers of unneeded management. Your tax dollar is already diluted by this point and becomes even more diluted by the time it is really spent to shelter a homeless person.